children, how they grow and nurture a community. so, the community, almost as a whole, turned toward the celebration of life and it really had a big impact on the way people started talking about these conversations. it does not mean people were not extremely angry, but the anger was not the driver. we immediately put in a program that we are calling carolina conversations and invited students to help us do it. it will be starting this year. the very first conversation was on race. setting that up, we went around to all of the student groups -- i had two or three big dinners and i invited students from every organization, across the political spectrum, and every one of them committed, in a way, to bring people to that meeting, and one of the most meaningful conversations that i heard was between two young men, different races, talking, and one of the

students going why are we here -- we're supposed to talk about race -- this is really hard. the other student said because -- you came because this is the first time and maybe the only time you would've talk to someone that looks like me. so, i see hope. these are not always for everyone. i do not think you have to worry as much about getting everyone in the conversation as starting the conversation, and bringing the students in an wielding these conversations out with real -- in and wielding these conversations out. if we think every time we meet we have to change the curriculum or redo everything, we will not make progress, but it's every time we meet we have an income until idea, we try it, tested, put it back in place, students will come, start believing in the process. i think carolina conversations is one step and stay tuned -- i

will come back next year and tell you about the rest. it is pretty important. i think almost every campus in america is probably going to be doing something more trying something like that, or i hope they are. thomas: thank you. before i ask the last question i have a few announcements -- the national press club is the leading organization for journalists and we fight for a free press worldwide. for more information, visit www. press.org. we would also like to remind you of upcoming programs -- tomorrow, we are hosting the command commandant of the united states coast guard. then the right reverend of the african methodist episcopal church. then nearly 13 years after hurricane katrina, mitch landrieu will speak. for more information go to press.org. i would like to present the

speaker with the traditional national press club mug, which i'm sorry is not in north carolina blue. [laughter] chancellor folt: thank you. it is not duke blue either. thomas: the last question, the duke-unc basketball score and we will hold you to it. chancellor folt: a good game carolina 96, duke 88. [applause] thomas: you heard it here first. thank you, chancellor folt. i would also like to thank the national press club staff and the broadcast center for guys in the event. if you like a copy of the

program or learn more about the national press club, go to that site, press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> in his weekly address president obama talks about voting rate. senator bob corker chair of the foreign relations -- relations committee at the republican response. president obama: hi, everybody. the right to vote is one of the most fundamental rights of any democracy. yet for too long, too many of our fellow citizens were denied that right, simply because of the color of their skin. fifty years ago this week, president lyndon johnson signed a law to change that. the voting rights act broke down legal barriers that stood between millions of african americans and their constitutional right to cast

a ballot. it was, and still is, one of the greatest victories in our country's struggle for civil rights. but it didn't happen overnight. countless men and women marched and organized, sat in and stood up, for our most basic rights. for this they were called agitators and un-american, they were jailed and beaten. some were even killed. but in the end, they reaffirmed the idea at the very heart of america; that people who love this country can change it. our country is a better place because of all those heroes did for us. but as one of those heroes congressman john lewis, reminded us in selma this past march, “there's still work to be done.” fifty years after the voting rights act, there are still too many barriers to vote, and too many people trying to erect new ones. we've seen laws that roll back early voting, force people to jump through hoops to cast a ballot, or lead to legitimate voters being improperly purged from the rolls.

over the years, we have seen provisions specifically designed to make it harder for some of our fellow citizens to vote. in a democracy like ours, with a history like ours, that's a disgrace. that's why, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act, i'm calling on congress to pass new legislation to make sure every american has equal access to the polls. it's why i support the organizers getting folks registered in their communities. and it's why, no matter what party you support, my message to every american is simple: get out there and vote -- not just every four years, but every chance you get. because your elected officials will only heed your voice if you make your voice heard. the promise that all of us are created equal is written into our founding documents but it's up to us to make that promise real. together, let's do what americans have always done: let's keep marching forward, keep perfecting our union, and

keep building a better country for our kids. thanks everybody. have a great weekend. sen. corker: i'm senator bob corker from tennessee, and i'm honored to serve as the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. over the last several weeks, congress has been reviewing the nuclear agreement between iran the united states, and other world powers. the deal has profound implications for the safety, stability, and security of our country and our allies. and it deserves close scrutiny from congress on behalf of the american people. that is why despite stiff initial opposition from the white house republicans and democrats in the house and senate overwhelmingly passed a bill to force the president to submit the nuclear deal to congress so lawmakers can review it, debate it, and vote. as we evaluate this deal, we must understand the character and nature of the iranian regime.

this is the same regime that today remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. it is the same regime that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of u.s. troops in iraq. and it is the same regime that is funding terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah and syria's dictator bashar al assad. the iranian supreme leader applauds those who chant "death to america" and we know they threaten the state of israel as they stoke violence and instability throughout the region. that is why the stakes of this nuclear deal are so high and the consequences are so great. over the years, iran has routinely violated international agreements through development of an illicit nuclear program that included covert facilities and previous work on a nuclear weapon. in response, the united states led by efforts in congress built an international sanctions regime to isolate iran economically, imposing a severe

cost on their country that ultimately brought iran to the negotiating table. in 2012, president obama declared that he would only accept a deal requiring iran to end their nuclear program. it was a goal that both republicans and democrats rallied behind, and still do today. that's why there is bipartisan concern with the deal that has been presented. rather than 'end' iran's nuclear program, this deal allows them to industrialize it over time -- with our approval. instead of the once promised anytime, anywhere inspections, this agreement gives iran nearly a month of advanced notice to hide any evidence of developing a nuclear weapon. and this deal won't allow a single u.s. inspector on the ground, relying on an arm of the un to conduct those inspections. even worse, there are two secret

side deals -- we can't ever see -- that appear to restrict inspectors' access to key sites. and after only nine months, all major sanctions will be relieved. at that point, the leverage shifts from us to iran. iran will get access to roughly $100 billion in cash within a few months, maybe nine, some of which it will use to help fund terrorism and instability. over the next decade, it will gain hundreds of billions of dollars of additional funds. and we will have paved the way for iran to have an internationally-approved nuclear program. iran will go from a weakened state to an economically-robust country, without being forced to change any of its roguish, destructive behavior. the president has said repeatedly that this is a choice between accepting this deal or going to war.

it is not. throughout the negotiations, the administration routinely asserted that 'no deal is better than a bad deal' and threatened to walk away if necessary. so clearly there was always another option for the white house -- and it wasn't war. our nation's top military general also confirmed that such a stark choice between this deal or war was never discussed during his conversations with the president. and in addition, the administration, iran, and our partners have known for several months that congress would have a role to play in whatever the united states will accept in the final agreement. unfortunately, the administration has tried to undermine the spirit of the law by going straight to the un for approval in hopes of pressuring congress to accept it.

congress must not be intimidated by this. the real decision for lawmakers isn't this deal or war. the real decision is whether congress believes this deal is in our national interest. do we believe this deal will prevent iran from getting the capability to develop a nuclear weapon? do we believe this deal will make america safer? when congress returns in september, it will consider a resolution to disapprove of the iran deal. this decision should not be taken lightly. it could be one of the most consequential votes we cast in our time in public service. there is perhaps no greater geopolitical issue facing the world today than preventing a nuclear-armed iran. and so we owe it to the american people to have a thorough and thoughtful debate. thank you for listening.

it is an honor to speak with you in this way and it is a great privilege to serve the people of tennessee. announcer: this week on newsmakers, congressman frank pallone talks about president obama's climate change plan. "newsmakers," sundays on c-span. peter: and now joining us is kevin ashton, he is the corner of the term, "the internet of things." he is also the author of "how to fly a horse: the secret histroy of creation, invention, and discovery." where is the origin of the title of the book?

kevin: it comes from the wright brothers. they said this is the kind of horse we have to learn to ride if we are going to fly. peter: how does this tie in with the theme? kevin: the interest thing -- interesting thing is where did they come up with the idea? they were not the first people to try to fly, how did they succeed? they understood the problem they were trying to solve much better. at the end of the day, being creative is not about having ideas in the shower or a ha moments, it is about solving problems one step at a time. understanding that a piece of

paper problem, which is a problem of balance, which is the key to the wright brothers that led to implying. -- flying. peter: you talk about the development of the "the internet of things," tens of thousands of hours of work. kevin: by me and thousands of others. that was an experience that led directly to the book. it is a book i had wish i had read 25 years ago when i started my career in creating. the lesson i learned from developing "the internet of things" was most of the books i read as a young man were wrong. there were no geniuses, you do not solve problems by not thinking about them and waiting

for the answers to suddenly appear. you take lots of steps many lead you to that end -- dead end s. that experience at m.i.t. directly influenced everything in "how to fly a horse: the secret histroy of creation invention, and discovery." peter: when did you first going that term -- coin that term? kevin: i was a manager at the proctor and gamble company. they make soap, paper, many household brands. i had an idea to keep my products on the shelves of the stores if i could put microchips into everything and connect those to the internet. i had to explain it to the ceo of procter & gamble and many other senior executives who are not as familiar to enter --

information technology as i was they knew the internet was important. one day i decided to change the title of my powerpoint presentation to "the internet of things" as a way to help them understand what i was talking about. it worked well. that led to me to m.i.t. and i spent for-five years giving a presentation all over the world. eventually the name caught on. peter: you write in your book you never got really good performance reviews and were in danger of being fired. kevin: yes, i had horrible performance reviews, nearly all of the time. i was always trying to create something, which meant i was always working with something unexpected, or something people do not understand. a lot of things i tried did not work, or were misunderstood. another thing, whenever things did work, everyone else aim to

get credit -- seemed to get credit. it is not uncommon for creative people to be undervalued. they are always doing something unexpected. peter: this is one reason the creativity that -- myth is so terribly wrong you write creativity is not rare, we are all born to do it. kevin: that is what makes the human race, human race. the reason we have become the most dominant species is because 50,000 years ago, not that long, one human being looked at a tool and said, i can make this better. up until that point, species of

human had been using different stones, it never changed. just like bird's nests don't change. it's a product of instinct. that led to us saying, we can make this better. we are all descended from that first human. we all have that innate instinct to improve things. that is what makes us different from other species. the idea that only a few human beings have the ability to create, which is embodied in this 19th century myth that there are geniuses, which are always white men, by the way. this idea is completely wrong. every human being has the innate potential to create new things. that does not mean we are all the same, we are not all equally good at creating, but everyone can do it.

peter: in the subchapter called ordinary axe, you write the case against genius is clear, too little pre-termination. what is the answer? kevin: creation is the acute relation of many tiny improvement of things that many people execute. even when we have some great inventor, and einstein, and edison or someone that people canonize, when you look closely there are always building on the work of thousands of people and adding tiny improvements. eventually someone to the last piece in the puzzle, and it is complete. everything we do is a series of fairly ordinary steps that

eventually leads to extort mary results -- extraordinary results. peter: what led you to believe it was not just genius? kevin: it was my study at m.i.t. and seeing how may people were involved, and how we acted at as a community of creative people solving pieces of a problem to create some thing new. as i started on the book, which began as a series of lectures, the more research i did, the more i found these amazing stories i had never heard before of people everywhere creating things. one of them, which i start the book with is how the vanilla industry was created. it was the most popular spice in the world, and the second most expensive spice. for hundreds of years it could only be grown in a tiny part of mexico.

the rest of the world was trying to figure out how to grow vanilla, and failing until a 12-year-old slave, did not have a last name, had a tiny island off of the east coast of africa figured out how to manually populate -- populate -- pollinate the vanilla orchid which leads to the vanilla bean. no one else had figured out that. as you look around you find apparently ordinary people doing amazing things because we have this creative potential. the other thing is everything around us has been created, we are completely dependent on conscious human intervention for everything we do, from apples which is the result of thousands of years of selection, two things like televisions, cars, and choose -- shoes.

everything is come -- invented by m1. -- by someone. everything ispeter: what are steps we can take to create? kevin: the first thing, maybe the only thing is to begin. there is probably something you need to improve, try to solve that problem. each time you come up with a solution, you evaluate that, the first thing you will find is the first idea is not that good. either it does not work at all or it causes other problems, and then you solve those problems. each time you evaluate the solution, and improve upon it, you're taking a step. after thousands of steps, it could take years, he will end up with something amazing. the trick is, find a small problem, come up with a

solution, evaluate to that solution, expect it not to work, do not be deterred, keep going keep learning from every failure, eventually you create something amazing. peter: kevin ashton, another story you tell in your book is about kelly johnson at the skunk works, who was he? kevin: kelly johnson is a remarkable figure in the history of aviation, that is what he is best known for. skunk works is the nickname of lockheed martin's advanced research group. during the second world war the allies particularly the united states and great britain realized they had a major problem. the second world war was the first air war. at the beginning of the war, all of the planes use propellers. during the war it was discovered

that a propeller-based plane cannot go faster than 500 miles per hour. there are aerodynamic principles that prevent that. british spies found that the germans had solved the problem by developing a jet engine. they were going to be -- bring a jet fighter into mass production in the 1940's. if that was allowed, and was unopposed by allied fighter planes then germany would win the war. kelly johnson and his team were given 150 days to build a jet fighter from scratch. it was the first one united states ever about -- built. that was a major accomplishment, and quite unexpected. in doing that, this is the story i tell in the book, johnson did something else, he demonstrated

what the ideal creative organization looks like. it is very focused, it does not have a lot of administration, it is not waste a lot of time on meetings, or planning. it concentrates on the work of solving problems and evaluating solutions. when you do that, you can accomplish amazing things. lockheed skunk works developed stealth technology and planes that flew 10 times faster than the speed of sound. peter: with regard to kelly johnson, he discovered that a small, isolated group is the best kind of team for creation. what is the importance of isolation? kevin: the way you create is by doing the work of creation anything else you do is distracting you. the isolation is an isolation

from distraction and interference first of all. secondly, it can be an isolation from skepticism and chrysostom -- criticism. you already have enough problems if you are building a jet fighter, you do not need outsiders telling you it cannot be done, you have to spend your time believing you can do it him and do it -- do it, and do it. you really want to keep everyone who is not engaged in the hard work of creating away from the creative cold -- base. you can distract and diminish the people who are doing the work if you do not keep them isolated. peter: kevin, something else you talk about in your book are the luddites, who are they? kevin: the luddites are

misunderstood. they are a group of workers from the northeast of england who about 200 years ago rosa and rebellion -- rose up in rebellion against the automated loom. they were weavers. about 200 years ago it became possible to create a loom that did not need a weaver. they used punch cards that contained the pattern and automatically woke a rug -- wove a rug or a piece of fabric. the luddites thought this meant the end for their lives and grandchildren's lives.

what they could not know is that was the beginning of the information revolution. what actually happened as a result of the automated loom and the industrial era it heralded was there was a need for more educated workers then there had ever been before. as a result of those apparently very disruptive, and potentially socially damaging technological changes, two things happened through the 18th century everyone in the industrialized world learn to read. nearly everyone could read by 1899. following on from that, in order to create a class of workers who could do the jobs we today call management around 1900 most of the industrialized countries started public education.

as a result of the automated loom ironically, the grandchildren of the luddites got to learn to read and go to school. the unexpected consequence of that technological revolution was a more educated, literate population. peter: we often refer to people who do not adopt technology as luddites, is that fair? kevin: no, a were opposed to technology that would potentially destroy their livelihood. one of the ironies, which they were well aware was the sledgehammers invented to destroy the automated looms was invented by the same man who invented the lambs -- looms. it was the consequences of technology that they feared. the other thing they say is

there is a misunderstanding of a word technology0 there i. -- technology. a lot of people use the word technology to mean iphones but looks are technology -- books are technology. everything we depend on is technology. you can show conclusively that human beings could not survive for more than a few days without technology. as we started adopting technology millions of years ago, our teeth and job changed. we cannot choose food unless we have tools to cook it. we are highly dependent on technology, even if some of the newer technology does not appeal to us. peter: how did you get to m.i.t., how is -- what was your role there?

kevin: i was not a professor. i was not a student. i was working in brand management for procter & gamble and trying to develop a technology that procter and gamble could use to manage their business more efficiently. i started collaborating with some academics at m.i.t., eventually we decided that they should fund the research. in my tea invited me to go manage that program. i was the deputy director of a lab called the auto id center. my status was visiting engineer. i have a liberal arts degree. my degree is in scandinavian study. i am not qualified to go to m.i.t. at all. my job there was to manage research, make sure the research got funded, make sure it stayed focused on the applications we

needed to deliver. it was a successful program. my cofounders at m.i.t. led an amazing research program eventually we had labs at five other universities around the world. peter: did you have a small, isolated focused team? kevin: absolutely. we had probably a couple of dozen phd and graduate level researchers doing most of the work. similar teams at other universities around the world that i mentioned. everyone had an incredible sense of mission. they knew exactly what they were trying to do, exactly what their role was. they understood if they were successful they were helping to write the history of computing. we were very focused and motivated. we spent as much time as we could doing the work and as

little time as possible as outside distractions. peter: did your study of 18th-century, or 19th century only in sven ever pay off? kevin: absolutely. i worked in the history of the playwright, henrik gibson. one thing that struck me about him was when he decided he wanted to be a playwright, he left his town of all slow, left his parents behind -- oslo, left his parents behind, and never went back. he was a perfect example of the kind of isolation and creative focus you often need to have if you want to be successful. the other thing about him, it was fascinating, i can talk about him for a long time, the

town he is from is a small town outside of oslo, he is now regarded as one of the five most important playwrights in history. to achieve that from a tiny town, writing in a light which only a few million people speak, is a major accomplishment. it is further evidence that anyone can create, and one step can lead to another step, that can ultimately lead to extraordinary results. peter: he started other companies and startups, describe that process? kevin: the first company i joined was called ting magic. it was founded by my colleagues and friends from m.i.t.. as soon as i finished the research program, i was the fifth employee. we would -- initially we did not

take money. we would get customers to pay us up front and then we would do the work. we would provide them with internet of things technology. we would use advanced engineering, not by me, but my colleagues. eventually we raised tens of millions of dollars in investments from major investors. one of them was cisco systems the big pewter company. -- computer company. eventually that was sold to a large conglomerate. i then joined a company called in a knock -- joined a company in boston. we wanted to create clean technology. that was a company started by other people. it had gone public when i joined.

that gave me experience how to apply technology to problem solve energy. at that point i had the perfect work experience. i worked for a big, old company, a bootstrap startup, and a company that had just gone public. i started my own company with a colleague. a professor from the university of washington also worked on it with us. within nine months we found ourselves in a bidding war with a number of companies wanting to acquire us. that was internet of things technology to help people save energy. we started that in 2009, which was supposed to be the worst time to start account -- company. it was the depths of the recession. by january 2010 we were acquired for a very large amount of

money. we were able to achieve that without investment from anyone at all. i was very lucky. i had three good experiences in the startup world. peter: what is the downside to "the internet of things? " kevin: i do not think there is a downside. it is a term that means giving computers their own senses. in the 20th century, computers had keyboards. computers were getting all of their information from people. there is only so much information we can gather ourselves. it is tedious and trivial together detailed information about the world what you really want is your information system together information for its elf -- itself. this is the world today, our smartphones use gps to figure

out where they are. we have cameras they can take their own pictures and recognize faces. we are moving into a world where we capture information automatically which is efficient. the next challenge, the one that a lot of us are working on right now is getting the computer to analyze the information that is -- it is gathering so it can give us useful information, or it can make decisions for us. decisions like driving cars were us -- for us. one thing that is coming quickly is self running cars. that will free us up to get from a to b more safely, without wasting time. we can do whatever we want to do

while we are traveling. it will be powerful. all technology comes with new problems that we need to solve. that is the way things progress, nothing is perfect. our ability to create new technology, which is uniquely human is what allows us to survive and thrive. 60 or 70 years from now we will have to support the population of 10 billion people that we need technology to help us do that. the internet of things will be a big part. peter: have you been following the fcc debate on net neutrality, and if so, do you have an opinion? kevin: net neutrality is a euphemism for cable companies trying to monopolize television. i hear a lot of discussion, but

when i explain it to people, they are a surprised -- are surprised. in the television world, producers can give it to you directly in the world of the internet. they can give it to your laptop, but also to set top boxes, like a videogame console, or a tivo what is happening is cable companies are providing with -- you with internet but they are being this intermediated -- disintermediated from providing you with television. the great fear for the cable companies is that their role

will simply be providing you with internet, they do not like that. they are trying to cripple services so you have to get their television. that is not how free markets are supposed to operate. we have to be honest about what it -- is going on in the net neutrality debate. it is an old industry trying to cling on. it is competition, the american way. peter: kevin ashton is the author of this book, "how to fly a horse: the secret histroy of creation, invention, and discovery." he has joined us from austin >> on the next washington journal, the july job numbers. robert bailey, the cultural exchange officer, examines u.s. china relations.

and eugene o'donnell, a lecturer at the college of criminal justice, looks at the state of police and community relations on the anniversary of the shooting in ferguson, missouri. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. >> sunday night, the former emergency manager of detroit talks about detroit's financial issues. >> if detroit had taken the $1.5 billion when the stock market went down to 6700, and invested in an index fund the stock market is trading on three times what it was. they would